Argument AGAINST Connectivism (Karen, Megan, Matt, Wendy--it is your responsibility to make sure that the Wiki is complete and polished before the due date)
Below are some key phrases that should be pointed out from Verhagen's critical essay (2006) on connectivism (taken from key information in Module 6):
"The core notion of connectivism appears to be that the learning process must create interconnections for knowledge that is distributed over many actual and virtual locations. Maintaining these connections then becomes a learning skill that is essential for life-long learning in a technological information society."
"The principle that “learning may reside in non-human appliances” appears to have a special significance for Siemens. In his article he returns to this subject several times to argue the shortcomings of existing learning theories. Taken literally, this principle refers to objects that learn. Siemens defines learning as “actionable knowledge” that “can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database).” This is a remarkable definition because learning is not defined as a process but as a result. If we adopt this definition of learning, then the observation that this knowledge can reside in a database or organisation is trivial."
"[Siemens] does not include an argument to support his claim that connectivism is an integration of chaos, network, complexity and organisation theory nor a reasoned synthesis of elements of those theories into the theory of all-inclusive connectivism. Lacking that, what is left for us to do is 'unsubstantiated philosophising', preferably over a glass of wine before dinner. Perhaps someone can come up with a cunning plan; otherwise I think that we should forget about connectivism." Against Connectivism: Supporting Research
In his Tuesday, October 10, 2006 blog post, “the network is not god” Bill Kerr quotes an interview with George Siemens discussing Constructivism versus Connectivism, where he states, "Constructivism, for me, fails on two levels: 1) it is not capable of functioning in rapid knowledge growth environments, as it doesn't account for learning that happens in networks and 2) constructivism is a "sometimes" learning habit (we are always connecting, but we only construct in certain situations)." Kerr's reply to this is, "As a critique this doesn't amount to much. It is just assertion. George has discovered that the network is good, the dominant paradigm of our new age. Network good. Construction not so good. But there is no actual argument here," going on to surmise that, "I still think that George has come up with some important ideas and insights about learning and the importance of networks in the way we view the world today. However, it simply is not good enough to reject the heritage of constructivism and for that matter, behaviourism (dennett's creatures, behavourism and the inner environment) in the superficial manner that has been attempted in his Constructivism versus Connectivism analysis." (WAR)
In their article, “Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?” in the October 2008 The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Rita Kop and Adrian Hill point out that, "Verhagen (2006) criticises connectivism as a new theory, primarily because he can distil no new principles from connectivism that are not already present in other existing learning theories. Moreover, he is not convinced that learning can reside in non-human appliances." They go on to state that, "A paradigm shift, indeed, may be occurring in educational theory, and a new epistemology may be emerging, but it does not seem that connectivism’s contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right." They do acquiesce that, "Connectivism, however, continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner." (WAR)
Like many authors of blogs and articles on connectivism, Glen Cochrane in his post, "Why Connectivism Is Not a Learning Theory" suggests that just because he is not calling connectivism a learning theory, does not mean he will devalue what this theory has proposed. He believes it could be a fundamental theory in education but it should not be called a learning theory. Though this source is not necessarily anti-connectivism, it does help provide some clarification for the first discussion question below. According to Cochrane, "Connectivism, which includes the separation of meaning and representation, cannot say anything about actual learning. Learning is a term of high approximation, that doesn’t fit in with the exact or pure approach of “non-representational” Connectivism. The theory of Connectivism certainly includes representation, but only in so much as it affects or adds to the quality of intentional messages of a connection" (2011). To clarify what he means by "representation," the blogger goes on to say "The realm of a learner includes representation as a medium to translate the values of knowledge that the individual learner understands and expresses as their own learning to compare with the various networks they are a part of. To interpret actual learning and collect concepts based on observed learning is the role of a learning theory, and these tasks lie outside the capabilities of Connectivism" (Cochrane, 2011). Trying to sum this up in layman's terms, Connectivism best theorizes the quality of one's access to distributed knowledge, not with how learners actually learn this knowledge. So perhaps what this author asserts overall is that connectivism is more about HOW people access their networks, not about how they internalize knowledge from those networks. (MJ)
Some support of connectivism, but still slightly bothered
In the blog post above, V. Yonkers (2009) started out by saying he/she supported many ideas of connectivism upon first learning about it but after two years, still has some reservations. The authors states: "As I begin to do my analysis, I feel I have put my finger on the major short coming of the theory as it exists today. Connectivism is grounded in systems and chaos theories. I find that these theories try to take the "personal" or "values" out of the approach. However, as humans, all of us are influenced by politics and culture." In order to improve this "theory" of connectivism, and make it a viable one, Yonkers (2009) suggests that the impact of politics and culture must be integrated into the theory, and it is sorely lacking at the moment. Questions that need to be asked are: How do these factors enter into one's learning network? And from an instructor's standpoint: "How can these networks be leveraged to facilitate learning? How should instruction be designed to address the political and cultural factors that effect learning due to the networked/connectedness environment? What skills do students need to learn in a connected environment?" (Yonkers, 2009) (MJ)
According to the Critique of Connectivism from the PhD Wiki Kerr, Verhagen, and Kop & Hill all have challenges to the connectivism theory. Kerr stated that a new theory can either completely replace an old theory, or can be a supplement to a current theory. Therefore, he believes that connectivism isnothing more than adding technology to constructivism. He believes it was so quickly accepted because the technology on which it is based is comparable to its conceptual framework, thereby making the other learning theories forgotten or invisible. He feels strongly that we cannot lose the concept of constructivism where learners construct their own knowledge in an individualistic way. Verhagen suggests that the principles of connectivism are already found in established learning theories. It could be considered a model to support pedagogy and curriculum; however, it does not substantiate a learning theory. Kop and Hill point out that their is a lack of supportive empirical research to support connectivism as a learning theory. (KS)
PDF - The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks was written by Rita Kop, a known opponent to Siemen's connectivism learning theory. Downes (2009) claimed that people can create and use their own personal learning environment and network to find information, make connections, and become actively engaged in aggregation (access to resources), relation (reflecting and relating), creation (i.e., blogging), and sharing activities. Rita Kop's paper focuses on three challenges to this approach. These challenges include self-directed learning, presence, and critical literacies. (KS)
In his “In Connectivism, No One Can Hear You Scream: a Guide to Understanding the MOOC Novice” Keith Brennan argues that we should not adhere to one learning theory, but rather borrow from many theories in order to help the many different students in our classrooms. Brennan also points out that connectivists may be missing a key part of student learning when they forget to focus on self-efficacy. He states that “motivation is the engine of effort, and the sense of self is the ticking heart of motivation.” So this sense of self-efficacy is one of the largest predictors of student success, and not necessarily the networked connections and nodes discussed in connectivism. Connectivist theory is behind the large MOOC movement and Brennan argues that although there is much potential in these classrooms, connectivist MOOCs do not offer the encouragement, persuasion, and support that more traditional learning provides. (Neil)
Some common attacks on connectivism include that it is a repackaging of other theories, that it isn’t new, and that there is a lack of original research, pedagogy or scholarship behind the learning theory. (Neil)
Connectivism Q&A
Is connectivism a learning theory?
Frances Bell, in her article "Connectivism: Its place in Theory-Informed Research and Innovation in Technology Enabled Learning," argues that while connectivism made a big initial splash in the blogosphere after Siemen's original ideas came out in 2004, it has not undergone the scholarly research and publishing that is required for it to be considered a new theory, and so lacks the rigor required to be classified as a new learning theory.
In fact, for the most part, the predominant basis of the argument opposing connectivism is based on the lack of robust empirical evidence that connectivism actually offers anything new outside of the realm of established learning theory, most notably constructivist learning theory. For example, in their article, “Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?” in the October 2008 The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Rita Kop and Adrian Hill agree, pointing out that, "Verhagen (2006) criticises connectivism as a new theory, primarily because he can distil no new principles from connectivism that are not already present in other existing learning theories. Moreover, he is not convinced that learning can reside in non-human appliances.... A paradigm shift, indeed, may be occurring in educational theory, and a new epistemology may be emerging, but it does not seem that connectivism’s contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right." (WAR)
Those studied in the context of this assignment who question the validity of connectivism as an actual learning theory seemingly do not dispute its growing importance as an education pedagogy. Karen hit the nail on the head when she paraphrased Kerr’s paper in the Critique of Connectivism from the PhD Wiki above, saying that Kerr “believes that connectivism is nothing more than adding technology to constructivism. He believes it was so quickly accepted because the technology on which it is based is comparable to its conceptual framework, thereby making the other learning theories forgotten or invisible.” And Kop and Hill also acquiesce that, "Connectivism, however, continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner." (WAR)
Based on Cochrane's (2011) and Yonkers' (2009) assertions, connectivism is not quite where it needs to be to be considered a learning theory; improvements still need to be made in defining how learners make meaning from the representations presented to them in social learning networks and the political and cultural impact on this networked learning in general cannot be ignored. (MJ)
Is connectivism relevant to teaching practices? If so, how?
No one on either side disputes that connectivism does indeed have value in the ongoing discourse of educational philosophy. But it is important to remember that it does draw heavily from already established and accepted learning theories, and can be therefore perceived, as Kerr points out in the Critique of Connectivism from the PhD Wiki above, asputting them into 21st century Net context. While connectivism clearly reflects the current state of how students want to learn in the early part of the 21st century, we also must take into account that the Web 2.0 technology it reflects will continue to evolve and possibly change into a new way to interact with it – Web 3.0, if you will. Will Web 3.0 include the shift to students’ crowdsouced learning facilitated by an instructor? It is impossible to say – after all, Web 2.0 was an organic evolution of yet radical departure from Web 1.0. Because of this, I feel only time will tell if this reflection leads to actual relevancy in the larger discourse. (WAR)
Honestly, I still could not even begin to decide if connectivism is relevant to my own teaching practices. I certainly know my students are "connected" to many networks in many ways but when it comes to any kind of learning theories, or non-theories, it is very difficult for me to internalize such academic "mumbo jumbo," for lack of a better phrase. I certainly do not intend to demean the work of educational psychologists (as long as they are/were educators or "facilitators of learning" in some capacity) but sometimes it's just too much for me to wrap my head around. I agree with Wendy that the jump from Web 1.0 to 3.0 (?) is certainly a fascinating, revolutionary one. (MJ)
Jenny Mackness argues that instead of focusing on whether connectivism is a learning theory or not we should be focusing on broader and more important questions including how technology will impact education and how we think, learn, and teach. I tend to agree and although I think that educational theories do impact our students in that they impact how we as teachers think and that changes our teaching practices, we should be focused on what works. So connectivism is relevant to teaching practices in that it can encourage teachers to think about how their students learn and how they can improve their teaching practice. (Neil) References and Resources
Bell, F. "Connectivism: Its place in theory informed research and innovation in technology enabled learning." International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 12.3 (March, 2011). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/902/1827
Home > Group B Workspace > Learning Activity 6-A-1
Argument AGAINST Connectivism (Karen, Megan, Matt, Wendy--it is your responsibility to make sure that the Wiki is complete and polished before the due date)Below are some key phrases that should be pointed out from Verhagen's critical essay (2006) on connectivism (taken from key information in Module 6):
"The core notion of connectivism appears to be that the learning process must create interconnections for knowledge that is distributed over many actual and virtual locations. Maintaining these connections then becomes a learning skill that is essential for life-long learning in a technological information society."
"The principle that “learning may reside in non-human appliances” appears to have a special significance for Siemens. In his article he returns to this subject several times to argue the shortcomings of existing learning theories. Taken literally, this principle refers to objects that learn. Siemens defines learning as “actionable knowledge” that “can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database).” This is a remarkable definition because learning is not defined as a process but as a result. If we adopt this definition of learning, then the observation that this knowledge can reside in a database or organisation is trivial."
"[Siemens] does not include an argument to support his claim that connectivism is an integration of chaos, network, complexity and organisation theory nor a reasoned synthesis of elements of those theories into the theory of all-inclusive connectivism. Lacking that, what is left for us to do is 'unsubstantiated philosophising', preferably over a glass of wine before dinner. Perhaps someone can come up with a cunning plan; otherwise I think that we should forget about connectivism."
Against Connectivism: Supporting Research
In his Tuesday, October 10, 2006 blog post, “the network is not god” Bill Kerr quotes an interview with George Siemens discussing Constructivism versus Connectivism, where he states, "Constructivism, for me, fails on two levels: 1) it is not capable of functioning in rapid knowledge growth environments, as it doesn't account for learning that happens in networks and 2) constructivism is a "sometimes" learning habit (we are always connecting, but we only construct in certain situations)." Kerr's reply to this is, "As a critique this doesn't amount to much. It is just assertion. George has discovered that the network is good, the dominant paradigm of our new age. Network good. Construction not so good. But there is no actual argument here," going on to surmise that, "I still think that George has come up with some important ideas and insights about learning and the importance of networks in the way we view the world today. However, it simply is not good enough to reject the heritage of constructivism and for that matter, behaviourism (dennett's creatures, behavourism and the inner environment) in the superficial manner that has been attempted in his Constructivism versus Connectivism analysis." (WAR)
In their article, “Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?” in the October 2008 The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Rita Kop and Adrian Hill point out that, "Verhagen (2006) criticises connectivism as a new theory, primarily because he can distil no new principles from connectivism that are not already present in other existing learning theories. Moreover, he is not convinced that learning can reside in non-human appliances." They go on to state that, "A paradigm shift, indeed, may be occurring in educational theory, and a new epistemology may be emerging, but it does not seem that connectivism’s contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right." They do acquiesce that, "Connectivism, however, continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner." (WAR)
Like many authors of blogs and articles on connectivism, Glen Cochrane in his post, "Why Connectivism Is Not a Learning Theory" suggests that just because he is not calling connectivism a learning theory, does not mean he will devalue what this theory has proposed. He believes it could be a fundamental theory in education but it should not be called a learning theory. Though this source is not necessarily anti-connectivism, it does help provide some clarification for the first discussion question below. According to Cochrane, "Connectivism, which includes the separation of meaning and representation, cannot say anything about actual learning. Learning is a term of high approximation, that doesn’t fit in with the exact or pure approach of “non-representational” Connectivism. The theory of Connectivism certainly includes representation, but only in so much as it affects or adds to the quality of intentional messages of a connection" (2011). To clarify what he means by "representation," the blogger goes on to say "The realm of a learner includes representation as a medium to translate the values of knowledge that the individual learner understands and expresses as their own learning to compare with the various networks they are a part of. To interpret actual learning and collect concepts based on observed learning is the role of a learning theory, and these tasks lie outside the capabilities of Connectivism" (Cochrane, 2011). Trying to sum this up in layman's terms, Connectivism best theorizes the quality of one's access to distributed knowledge, not with how learners actually learn this knowledge. So perhaps what this author asserts overall is that connectivism is more about HOW people access their networks, not about how they internalize knowledge from those networks. (MJ)
Some support of connectivism, but still slightly bothered
In the blog post above, V. Yonkers (2009) started out by saying he/she supported many ideas of connectivism upon first learning about it but after two years, still has some reservations. The authors states: "As I begin to do my analysis, I feel I have put my finger on the major short coming of the theory as it exists today. Connectivism is grounded in systems and chaos theories. I find that these theories try to take the "personal" or "values" out of the approach. However, as humans, all of us are influenced by politics and culture." In order to improve this "theory" of connectivism, and make it a viable one, Yonkers (2009) suggests that the impact of politics and culture must be integrated into the theory, and it is sorely lacking at the moment. Questions that need to be asked are: How do these factors enter into one's learning network? And from an instructor's standpoint: "How can these networks be leveraged to facilitate learning? How should instruction be designed to address the political and cultural factors that effect learning due to the networked/connectedness environment? What skills do students need to learn in a connected environment?" (Yonkers, 2009) (MJ)
According to the Critique of Connectivism from the PhD Wiki Kerr, Verhagen, and Kop & Hill all have challenges to the connectivism theory. Kerr stated that a new theory can either completely replace an old theory, or can be a supplement to a current theory. Therefore, he believes that connectivism is nothing more than adding technology to constructivism. He believes it was so quickly accepted because the technology on which it is based is comparable to its conceptual framework, thereby making the other learning theories forgotten or invisible. He feels strongly that we cannot lose the concept of constructivism where learners construct their own knowledge in an individualistic way. Verhagen suggests that the principles of connectivism are already found in established learning theories. It could be considered a model to support pedagogy and curriculum; however, it does not substantiate a learning theory. Kop and Hill point out that their is a lack of supportive empirical research to support connectivism as a learning theory. (KS)
PDF - The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks was written by Rita Kop, a known opponent to Siemen's connectivism learning theory. Downes (2009) claimed that people can create and use their own personal learning environment and network to find information, make connections, and become actively engaged in aggregation (access to resources), relation (reflecting and relating), creation (i.e., blogging), and sharing activities. Rita Kop's paper focuses on three challenges to this approach. These challenges include self-directed learning, presence, and critical literacies. (KS)
In his “In Connectivism, No One Can Hear You Scream: a Guide to Understanding the MOOC Novice” Keith Brennan argues that we should not adhere to one learning theory, but rather borrow from many theories in order to help the many different students in our classrooms. Brennan also points out that connectivists may be missing a key part of student learning when they forget to focus on self-efficacy. He states that “motivation is the engine of effort, and the sense of self is the ticking heart of motivation.” So this sense of self-efficacy is one of the largest predictors of student success, and not necessarily the networked connections and nodes discussed in connectivism. Connectivist theory is behind the large MOOC movement and Brennan argues that although there is much potential in these classrooms, connectivist MOOCs do not offer the encouragement, persuasion, and support that more traditional learning provides. (Neil)
Some common attacks on connectivism include that it is a repackaging of other theories, that it isn’t new, and that there is a lack of original research, pedagogy or scholarship behind the learning theory. (Neil)
Connectivism Q&A
Is connectivism a learning theory?
Frances Bell, in her article "Connectivism: Its place in Theory-Informed Research and Innovation in Technology Enabled Learning," argues that while connectivism made a big initial splash in the blogosphere after Siemen's original ideas came out in 2004, it has not undergone the scholarly research and publishing that is required for it to be considered a new theory, and so lacks the rigor required to be classified as a new learning theory.
In fact, for the most part, the predominant basis of the argument opposing connectivism is based on the lack of robust empirical evidence that connectivism actually offers anything new outside of the realm of established learning theory, most notably constructivist learning theory. For example, in their article, “Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?” in the October 2008 The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Rita Kop and Adrian Hill agree, pointing out that, "Verhagen (2006) criticises connectivism as a new theory, primarily because he can distil no new principles from connectivism that are not already present in other existing learning theories. Moreover, he is not convinced that learning can reside in non-human appliances.... A paradigm shift, indeed, may be occurring in educational theory, and a new epistemology may be emerging, but it does not seem that connectivism’s contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right." (WAR)
Those studied in the context of this assignment who question the validity of connectivism as an actual learning theory seemingly do not dispute its growing importance as an education pedagogy. Karen hit the nail on the head when she paraphrased Kerr’s paper in the Critique of Connectivism from the PhD Wiki above, saying that Kerr “believes that connectivism is nothing more than adding technology to constructivism. He believes it was so quickly accepted because the technology on which it is based is comparable to its conceptual framework, thereby making the other learning theories forgotten or invisible.” And Kop and Hill also acquiesce that, "Connectivism, however, continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner." (WAR)
Based on Cochrane's (2011) and Yonkers' (2009) assertions, connectivism is not quite where it needs to be to be considered a learning theory; improvements still need to be made in defining how learners make meaning from the representations presented to them in social learning networks and the political and cultural impact on this networked learning in general cannot be ignored. (MJ)
Is connectivism relevant to teaching practices? If so, how?
No one on either side disputes that connectivism does indeed have value in the ongoing discourse of educational philosophy. But it is important to remember that it does draw heavily from already established and accepted learning theories, and can be therefore perceived, as Kerr points out in the Critique of Connectivism from the PhD Wiki above, as putting them into 21st century Net context. While connectivism clearly reflects the current state of how students want to learn in the early part of the 21st century, we also must take into account that the Web 2.0 technology it reflects will continue to evolve and possibly change into a new way to interact with it – Web 3.0, if you will. Will Web 3.0 include the shift to students’ crowdsouced learning facilitated by an instructor? It is impossible to say – after all, Web 2.0 was an organic evolution of yet radical departure from Web 1.0. Because of this, I feel only time will tell if this reflection leads to actual relevancy in the larger discourse. (WAR)
Honestly, I still could not even begin to decide if connectivism is relevant to my own teaching practices. I certainly know my students are "connected" to many networks in many ways but when it comes to any kind of learning theories, or non-theories, it is very difficult for me to internalize such academic "mumbo jumbo," for lack of a better phrase. I certainly do not intend to demean the work of educational psychologists (as long as they are/were educators or "facilitators of learning" in some capacity) but sometimes it's just too much for me to wrap my head around. I agree with Wendy that the jump from Web 1.0 to 3.0 (?) is certainly a fascinating, revolutionary one. (MJ)
Jenny Mackness argues that instead of focusing on whether connectivism is a learning theory or not we should be focusing on broader and more important questions including how technology will impact education and how we think, learn, and teach. I tend to agree and although I think that educational theories do impact our students in that they impact how we as teachers think and that changes our teaching practices, we should be focused on what works. So connectivism is relevant to teaching practices in that it can encourage teachers to think about how their students learn and how they can improve their teaching practice. (Neil)
References and Resources
Attacks on connectivism. (February 2011). Jenny Connected. Retrieved July 26, 2013, from http://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/attacks-on-connectivism/ (Neil)
Bell, F. "Connectivism: Its place in theory informed research and innovation in technology enabled learning." International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 12.3 (March, 2011). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/902/1827
Cochrane, G. (2011, September 7). "Why Connectivism Is Not a Learning Theory" [Blog post]. Retrieved from A Point of Contact website:
http://apointofcontact.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/why-connectivism-is-not-a-learning-theory/
Keith, B. (n.d.). In Connectivism, No One Can Hear You Scream: a Guide to Understanding the MOOC Novice | Open Education | HYBRID PEDAGOGY. Retrieved July 26, 2013, from http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/Journal/files/Guide_to_the_MOOC_Novice.html (Neil)
Kerr, B. “the network is not god.” From his Tuesday, October 10, 2006 self-titled blog post. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2006/10/network-is-not-god.html (WAR)
Kop, R., and Hill, A. “Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?” The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, (October, 2008). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523/1103 (WAR)
Yonkers, V. (2009, January 7). Learning theories: In support of connectivism [Blog post]. Retrieved from Connecting 2 the World website: http://connecting2theworld.blogspot.com/search/label/connectivism